The communal organizations of the Jewish communities of the South-West, 1750-1900

Part 1

Lay and Religious Leadership

Until the second World War the constitutions of the four
South-West Congregations, like all the historic congregations of
Anglo-Jewry, [See V. D. Lipman, 'Synagogal organisation in
Anglo-Jewry', The Jewish Journal of Sociology, I (1959) (afterwards
quoted as Lipman, 'Synagogal Organisation'), 80-93.] were
essentially oligarchic in character. In this regard they conformed to
the general pattern of the closed municipal corporations of
eighteenth- and nineteenth-century England, with the status of
privileged membership (Hezkat HaKehillah) corresponding to that of
the freedom of the corporation which was available by purchase,
inheritance, or apprenticeship. V. D. Lipman has pointed out even
closer parallels between the London synagogal organization and the
close vestries of the parishes where there was even identity of
nomenclature. [Lipman, 'Synagogal Organisation', (Vp. 85.] All the
Congregations made a clear distinction between full members - Baalei Batim enjoying Hezkat HaKehillah
(congregational rights or vestry membership), and the renters of seats - Toshavim or seatholders. Outside these two classes, all others were
regarded merely as Orchim, strangers or guests, even though they may
have been resident in the town for many years. [See Laws and
Regulations of the Plymouth Hebrew Congregation (1835) (afterwards
quoted as PHC Regulations, 1835), p. 2. Seatholders were sometimes
called orchim in Plymouth (PHC Min. Bk. I, p. 10).]

The original Baalei Batim, or vestry members as they were later
called when the congregations translated their traditional terms,
[PHC Regulations, 1835, p. 9. In Manchester they were called Free
Members (Williams, Manchester Jewry, p. 54.)] were the wealthier
members of the nascent community who were willing and able to
shoulder the first expenses. Possibly they allowed the poor but
exceptionally learned to join their ranks. [In 1789 it was found
necessary to specify that poor vestry members had equal rights with
the rich (PHC Min. Bk. I, p. 49).] The group of Baalei Batim
governed the affairs of the Congregation in the form of an executive
committee known as Kohol. [The term is transliterated in the
Ashkenasi pronunciation, which was used by the immigrants.] Once
the Plymouth Congregation's Kohol had been constituted, vestry
membership was automatically granted to the sons and sons-in-law of
Baalei Batim on payment of half a guinea, [PHC Min. Bk. I,
regulation 14, p. 5.] whilst others if they obtained a majority
of votes in their favour after being proposed and seconded in Kohol
would be granted the same rights on payment of two guineas.
[Ibid. regulation 13. The amounts payable for vestry membership
did not vary much until the category was abolished in 1945. The
London synagogues charged five or ten guineas (Lipman, 'Synagogal
Organisation', p. 81).] A similar arrangement was in operation in
Exeter:

The son of a vestry member having had a seat two years, paying the
full amount due to the Kehillah by him to the day of his admission,
and of a good moral character, may be admitted a member of Kohol, if
married at twenty-one years of age and if not married at twenty-five
years of age; on admission to pay half a guinea. If a person should
marry the daughter of a vestry member he must be Twenty-one years of
age, pay One Guinea admission and be subject to all the aforenamed
conditions. A Seatholder having had a seat for three years may be
proposed for a vestry member but must be twenty-one years of age if
married, and if not married Twenty-five years of age, on admission to
pay one Guinea, such person can only be elected at the Annual Meeting
and must be proposed at a Quarterly Meeting previous. [EHC
Regulations, 1833, no. 15.]

The same system operated in
Penzance. In 1844, when other small
provincial congregations were abandoning the oligarchic system and
there were murmurings against it in London, [Lipman, 'Synagogal
Organization', p. 87.] the tiny and declining Congregation there
revised its regulations and still maintained the class distinctions.
The Congregation forming the Penzance community was classed thus:

Baalei Batim, members having Hezkat HaKehillah, that is to say,
being possessed of all rights and privileges appertaining to them as
established Members of the Congregation.

Toshavim, persons having a seat in the synagogue for twelve
months.

All other descriptions of persons are called Orchim or strangers.
[Roth MSS 205, PenHC Revised Regulations, 1844, no. 7.]

The Baalei Batim formed about one-third to a half of the total
Jewish community, as Table 34 illustrates.

Table 34: Baalei batim, toshavim, and orchim in the South-West Congregations in 1845

Among what may be termed the religious privileges of the Baalei
Batim were those of officiating as Hatan Torah and Bereishit;
[See
Glossary for these and the following Hebrew terms.] to
officiate as Segan on the Sabbath preceding the wedding of one of his
children, or on the Sabbath when one of his sons was Bar Mitzvah, or
if his wife attended the synagogue for the first time after child
birth, or if his son was circumcised that day; of being given an
Aliyah on Festivals, on the Sabbath before and after the marriage of
a child, the circumcision of a child or Yahrzeit, on the day of his
wife's first appearance in synagogue after her confinement, the day
of his son's Bar Mitzvah, or when he was obliged to Bentsch Gomel; to
have the attendance of the cantor and beadle on the occasions of a
circumcision or mourning; to lead congregational prayers except on
Sabbath and Festivals. The privileges of the Baalei Batim extended to
the very portals of the next world. They were also entitled to burial on the high ground belonging to the Congregation, free of
expense for himself and wife, and right of ground free of expense for
his children, parents, brothers and sisters. [PHC Regulations,
1835, p. 9, of which Roth MSS 205, PenHC Revised Regulations, 1844,
nos. 31-38 are a word-for-word repetition.]

The Baalei Batim strenuously defended their privileges and
preserved their status even when they left town, paying half a guinea
to retain their rights. [PHC Min. Bk. I, p. 9. In Exeter he could
keep his Hezkat HaKehillah rights by paying an annual retainer of
five shillings (EHC Regulations, 1833, no. 16).]

The Baalei Batim had not only religious privileges, they also had
control of the governing body of the congregation, Kohol, as well as
the power to assess contributions and control financial outlay. It is
fair to add that they also carried the lion's share of the financial
outlay. In 1815, for example, the average annual per capita income
from the Plymouth Congregation's Baalei Batim was £10. 12s.
compared to £4. 5s. from the seat holder. [PHC A/c.
1815.] The four Congregations in the South-West had a very
similar hierarchy. A Parnas - the president or warden; a Gabbai Zedakah
(literally, charity collector) - the treasurer;
a Gabbai Beth Hayyim - an overseer of the burial ground; a
committee of the Five Men or the Three Men; and Kohol, the vestry.
[PHC Regulations, 1835, p. 1. The London Congregations had much
the same organization on a more elaborate scale consonant with their
larger numbers (Lipman, 'Synagogal Organization', pp. 81-3).] All
of these were recruited only from the ranks of the Baalei Batim, who
formed a social elite. [There does not appear to have been the
rivalry between the 'old', established section of the community and
the up and coming aspiring newcomers, leading to pressures to found
new synagogues as in Manchester, London, Liverpool and Newcastle
((Williams, Manchester Jewry, pp. 135-63; D. Cesarani, 'The
Transformation of Communal Authority in Anglo-Jewry, 1914 - 1940',
The Making of Modern Anglo-Jewry, ed. D. Cesarani, pp. 6, 115;
Kokosalakis, Ethnic Identity, p. 68; G. D. Guttentag, 'The Beginnings
of the Newcastle Jewish Community', TJHSE, XXV (1977), pp. 1 -
25).]

It is convenient to describe the rights and duties of the members
of this hierarchy as they were found in the Plymouth Congregation, as
this will serve as a model for the other Congregations as well. The
most powerful individual in the Congregation was the Parnas. He had
'the general superintendence of all the affairs of the Congregation,
whether relative to the state of the community in general or to the
Synagogue in particular'. [PHC Regulations, 1835, p. 2.] He
acted as Segan unless that office was otherwise disposed of,
presented all mitzvot, sending out notices each Thursday telling
which seat-holders had to attend on Sabbath for an aliyah. Marriages
could not be celebrated without his permission nor burials, nor could
announcements be made in the synagogue or notices displayed there
without his special licence. Moreover, the Parnas could empower the
Gabbai to give not more than one guinea to any one necessitous
person. [Ibid. p. 3.]

The Gabbai had the management of all receipts and expenditures of
the Congregation, and was responsible for distributing casual relief
to poor applicants, provided he did not give any individual more than
five shillings in any one month, and also matzot to the poor. The
seating arrangements in the synagogue were under his care and the
letting of seats under his hand. It was also his province to order
and superintend repairs to the synagogue or its ancillary buildings
and to purchase whatever was needed, but he was not to spend more
than two pounds without the prior consent of the vestry (Etrogim
[Palm, citron, myrtles, and willows required for the festival of
Tabernacles.] and candles excepted). It was naturally the duty of
the Treasurer to keep the books, inspect the accounts of the
collector, and to render an account to the vestry in the month of
Heshvan (=October, i.e. after the High Festivals). [Ibid. pp. 4,
5.]

There was, and is, a special enclosed seat, 'the box', in front of
the Bimah in which the Parnas and Gabbai had to sit, [PHC
Regulations, 1835, p. 2.] and Honorary Officers are still
colloquially known as 'the box'.

The third member of the executive was the overseer of the burial
ground. His primary duty was to make all the necessary arrangements
for funerals and to see that the burial ground was kept in proper
order. To this latter end in his own discretion he could expend not
more than half a guinea. Monies received from funerals or laid out
for cemetery expenses were kept in a separate account called the
Tikkun Beth Hayyim, and he had to give an account of this fund to the
vestry at the appropriate time (Heshbon Zedek). Like his two
colleagues he was also concerned with welfare work. He had to arrange
for donations collected at funerals [It is customary for the
beadle to hold out a charity box at the cemetery, crying the verse,
'But charity delivers from death' (Proverbs 10:2) in Hebrew.] to
be distributed immediately to the poor. The relief of poverty due to
sickness was his special province, and he could give up to ten
shillings and sixpence to any one case. Moreover, he was obliged to
visit the sick and arrange a rota of every member of the
Congregation, whatever his status, to attend the sick and render such
help as was necessary. [PHC Regulations, 1835, pp. 5, 6.]

But however influential the Honorary Officers were, it was the
vestry, Kohol, which was the ultimate source of power, both making
laws and enforcing them. The vestry was composed of the Baalei Batim
who had to attend all meetings, unless unwell or out of town,
[EHC Regulations, 1833, no. 6.] and who were obliged to vote
yea or nay on each proposition. [Ibid. no. 14.]

The Committees of Three [Ibid. no. 1.] or Five [PHC
Min. Bk. I, p. 17.] men had very little executive power, their
function being largely advisory. [Ibid.]

It is rather strange that they did not have a committee of seven,
styled in Hebrew, the shiva tuvei ha'ir (the 'seven good men' of the
Talmud and the Responsa literature), but possibly such a large
subcommittee would have been unwieldy in relation to the size of the
Kohol.

Another office of some importance, as it could only be served by
Baalei Batim of three years standing, was that of Treasurer of the
Perpetual Lamp. Only Plymouth of the South-Western Congregations
appears to have maintained this office, a nonexecutive one, and even
there only in the eighteenth century. [PHC Min. Bk. I, p. 5. Cf.
the special prayer offered on Sabbaths in all synagogues for 'those
who give lamps for lighting and wine for kiddush and havdalah'. Only
by chance did the author discover that Mr Jack Cohen's family has
defrayed the expense of wine for the Plymouth synagogue for the past
century.] Election to executive office was dependent on a form of
apprenticeship. The Plymouth Congregation's rules stipulated that no
person could be 'elected to the office of Parnas unless he has first
served or paid fine for the office of Gabbai' nor can he be elected
to the office of Gabbai unless he has served or been fined for the
office of overseer of the cemetery fund'. [PHC Regulations, 1835,
p. 7.] Even this last and lowly office could only be served by a
Baal Habayit of three years standing. [PHC Min. Bk. I, p. 5. A
similar rule was in force in London (Lipman, 'Synagogal
Organization', p. 84) and in other provincial communities, e.g.
Bristol (Rules for regulating the congregation of the Old Synagogue,
Bristol (1838), p. 4.] In the eighteenth century, bachelors were
not admitted to executive office though they could exercise the other
rights and privileges of Baalei Batim. [PHC Min. Bk. I, p.
45.]

The oligarchic type of constitution remained in force in the
Falmouth, Penzance and Exeter Congregations until their disbandment
in the late nineteenth century. [Lipman, 'Synagogal
Organization', p. 85.] In Plymouth, too, it remained rigidly in
force. Until the Second World War, the vestry members wore silk top
hats at Sabbath and Festival services, [Mr Lionel Aloof
recollects these being kept in a small room reserved for that
purpose.] but ex-Servicemen returning after the war insisted on
one type of membership with equal rights for all members. [London
and some provincial Congregations were moving towards a more
democratic pattern in the second half of the eighteenth century
(Lipman, 'Synagogal Organization', p. 86).] This democratization
did not, however, extend to women, who, even if members in their own
right (such as widows or spinsters), never had a vote nor could they
be elected to any executive office. From time to time since 1960,
there have been attempts by some of the members of the Plymouth
Congregation to secure voting rights for women, but these were vetoed
by the religious leadership. Eventually, a resolution giving women
the vote and the right to serve on the General Purposes Committee but
not to be chairman or treasurer, was passed in 1975.

Side by side with lay leadership, the South-West Congregations had
at various times differing degrees of religious leadership.
Traditionally, a well-organized Jewish community needs a rabbi, a
shochet, a mohel and a teacher; it is also desirable to have a cantor
and a beadle.

The functions of a rabbi are essentially judicial, with an
independent jurisdiction, a function in Anglo-Jewry which is nowadays
generally exercised by a dayan of a Bet Din. He gives rulings on the
requirements of Jewish law both for the community as well as for
individual Jews. As Judaism is an all-embracing way of life, the
rabbi's authority extends to the very warp and woof of a Jew's life,
both religious and secular. Not only religious services, observance
of the Sabbath and dietary laws and other religious precepts, but
also business dealings such as contracts, loans and their repayment,
credit purchase and interest agreements, as well as matters affecting
personal status such as marriage and divorce, contraception and
abortion, organ transplants and the like, are the legitimate province
of the rabbi, who advises how these matters may be carried out
consonantly with Jewish law and who settles any disputes which may
arise. Theoretically, and largely in practice, in Jewish communities
throughout the world at least until the seventeenth century, the
rabbi was the head and leader of the congregation over which he was
appointed.

In the Anglo-Jewish community from the re-settlement in the
mid-seventeenth century until towards the end of the nineteenth
century few Congregations elected a rabbi of the type just described.
[See Gartner, Jewish Immigrant, pp. 190, 215. See also Williams,
Manchester Jewry, p. 182. Even the appointment of Rabbi Dr
Schiller-Szinessy to the Manchester community in 1851 was subject to
the agreed proviso that 'he would not assume for himself any decision
on rabbinical questions' (Williams, Manchester Jewry, p. 188). For an
account of Manchester Jewry's struggle to appoint its own independent
Rabbi in the mid-nineteenth century, see Williams, Manchester Jewry,
pp. 209-20, 234-7. Orthodox, small, independent hevrot in Manchester
and London began to appoint dayan-type rabbis towards the end of the
nineteenth century (see B. Williams, 'East and West', The Making of
Modern Anglo-Jewry, ed. D. Cesarani, (Oxford, 1990), p. 17. In
Liverpool, no rabbi had any special power in the running of the
community; as late as the 1920's, the authority of the communal Rav,
Rabbi S. J. Rabbinowitz, was not recognized by the Old Hebrew
Congregation (Kokosalakis, Ethnic Identity, pp. 69, 147).] For
the most part, both the London and provincial Congregations were
content to utilise the rabbi of the Great Synagogue, London, who was
often styled in the eighteenth century 'the High Priest', and
afterwards 'the Chief Rabbi'. Several factors account for this
centralization of rabbinical functions. [See Gartner, Jewish
Immigrant, pp. 190, 215.] In the first place, newly emerging
congregations were rarely sufficiently well financed to be able to
afford the 'luxury' of a rabbi. Particularly, as between them the
congregants had a fair knowledge of the requirements of Jewish law in
most day to day situations. Furthermore, it is probable that Jewish
immigrants to England in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as
well as the twentieth, were not averse to relaxing strict rabbinical
supervision of their lives. Indeed, it may well be that the absence
of such supervision and the general lack of social pressure to
conform with Jewish religious requirements prompted some immigrants
to leave their strictly ordered lives in their native town and settle
in the more liberalized atmosphere of England. As one Toynbee Hall,
London, resident put it,

It is a common saying amongst the foreign Jews that England is a
'freie Medinah' - a country where the restrictions of
orthodoxy cease to apply... [See Gartner, Jewish Immigrant, pp.
24, 195.]

Then again, financial control and hence ultimate power was vested
in the lay leadership which was loath to share its authority with a
local religious authority and thus possibly lose it altogether. For
all these reasons, it was far more convenient for a provincial
Congregation to recognize the Chief Rabbi [The Chief Rabbi was
virtually the only person in England with Congregational
responsibilities who was called by the title of Rabbi.] in London
as its spiritual head and to submit to him peripheral points which
affected in the main only the externals of Judaism, whilst retaining
local autonomy to deal with many matters as it thought fit, rather
than to appoint a local rabbi. [Cf. the usurpation of rabbinical
function by the Kohol of Plymouth in 1819 which decided, for example,
who were the obligatory aliyot (PHC Min. Bk. I, p. 90).] It has
also been argued that after 1870 the Chief Rabbi's authority was
strengthened by Anglo-Jewish communities which wanted an equivalent
of the Archbishop of Canterbury. [S. Sharot, Judaism: A Sociology
(1976), p. 72, quoted by Kokosalakis, Ethnic Identity, p.
78.]

In recognizing the Chief Rabbi in London as their rabbinical
authority and eschewing a local rabbi, the Congregations of the
South-West conformed to the pattern followed by most other provincial
Anglo-Jewish Congregations in the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries. The Plymouth Congregation entered into its Book of Records
written in 1807, a special page entitled (in translation):

And these are the names of the Gaonim who had Rabbinical Authority
here in the holy congregation of Plymouth, may our city be speedily
rebuilt, amen, [and there follow the names] the late Rabbi
Zvi Hirsch; the late Rabbi David Tevele Schiff, righteous priest;
Rabbi Solomon, may his light shine, the son of the aforesaid Gaon Zvi
Hirsch. [PHC Bk. of Records, p. 29.]

The superscription is so couched that at first reading it might
well be thought, and indeed it once was, that Rabbi Tevele Schiff and
the others had actually been the local rabbis in Plymouth. [Roth,
Provincial Jewry, p. 92.] This is, however, impossible, as the
career of the last named is too well known to admit of the
possibility that he had ever been a rabbi in Plymouth. The authority
of the London Chief Rabbi was amply acknowledged by the Plymouth
Congregation. Its regulations of 1779 compel every person called to
the Torah to mention the name of 'the Gaon, the Head of the Beth Din
of the
Great Synagogue in the holy congregation of London'. [PHC
Min. Bk. I, p. 1.] The same rule was incorporated in the Penzance
Congregation's regulations in 1844, by which time, however, it was
omitted in Plymouth. [Roth MSS 205, Regulation 79.]

A special commemorative prayer was made in Plymouth on behalf of
the departed Chief Rabbis of England. [This prayer is currently
recited in many synagogues belonging to the United Synagogue,
London.] A manuscript prayer book written specially for the
Plymouth Congregation in 1805 commemorates the following:

Shraga ben Naftali [Aaron Hart, in office 1709-1756]

Rabbi Jonathan ben Nathan

Rabbi David ben Solomon the Priest [David Tevele Schiff,
1756-1764]

Rabbi Moses ben Meir [Moses Myers]

and, added in a later hand,

Rabbi Solomon ben Zvi [Solomon Hirschell, 1802-1842]
[Jonathan ben Nathan and Moses Myers do not figure in the
authoritative list of Chief Rabbis given by C. Roth in the Festival
Prayer Book for Tabernacles published by Routledge, London, 1951,
though he mentions Moses Myers in his article on the Chief Rabbinate,
JC, 31 July 1931.]

In the 1779 regulations it was also enacted that in the event of a
dispute between members of the Congregation

they shall not go to the Gentile courts but it shall be dealt with
by our vestry here. If the matter is difficult then they should bring
it to the Priest, the Head of the Beth Din, the Gaon of the Great
Synagogue. [PHC Min. Bk. I, p. 1.]

Similarly an authorization from the Chief Rabbi was required
before any marriage was solemnized. [Ibid. p. 3.] A minute of
1802 shows just how seriously the Congregation took its
responsibility in this matter:

Behold, there is a certain man here, and his name is Elimelech ben
Rabbi Moses YZV, and it is in his mind to arrange a wedding for his
wife's daughter, the maiden Pessela bat Nathaniel, may his lamp
shine, together with the bridegroom Zelig ben Asher, and he has asked
us to send on his behalf for authorization of the wedding ceremony.
However, these men have no portion or inheritance in our Congregation
YIA, neither do we know anything at all about the bride or groom as
to who they are. Therefore we have withheld our hand from writing
anything in this matter except by consent of our Teacher, may his
lamp shine. [PHC Min. Bk. II, p. 23.]

Moreover, from an early date the Congregation would not appoint a
shochet unless he was duly certified as competent by the Chief Rabbi,
even if he had been so certified by well-known European rabbis.
[PHC Min. Bk. II, p. 55.] The control was very tight. When it
was discovered in 1764, during the interregnum that followed Hart
Lyon's [Chief Rabbi from 1758-1764.] retirement, that Moses
ben Uri Hamburger, one of the London shochetim, had given a licence
to a certain Hirsch Mannheim of Plymouth, the officers of the Great
Synagogue, London, insisted that his position should be regularized,
until a new Chief Rabbi was elected, by the three official London
shochetim. [C. Roth, 'The Chief Rabbinate in England', Essays
presented to J. H. Hertz, ed. I. Epstein, E. Levine, C. Roth (1942),
p. 374.] It may also be observed that when important agreements
between various groups within the Congregation were made, they were
entered into under the auspices of the Chief Rabbi who was the
natural arbitrator when any dispute about the interpretation of the
agreement arose. [PHC Min. Bk. II. p. 55.]

In the early part of the nineteenth century the Plymouth
Congregation paid what amounted to an annual retainer to Solomon
Hirschell, the Chief Rabbi in London. In 1808, for example, the
vestry voted ten pounds to be sent to him as 'head of the Beth Din of
London and the State'. [Ibid. p. 48.] Similarly,in 1811 it
was decided 'to send a present to the Rav, the Gaon, our master and
teacher, the sum of £15 for the past three years'. [Ibid. p.
65.] Apparently the rate was fixed at about five pounds per
annum. The relationship between the Congregation and the Chief
Rabbinate was formally recognized at the election of Chief Rabbi
Nathan Adler in 1844, when Plymouth had two votes by virtue of making
an annual contribution of ten guineas. [VJ, 16 August
1844.]

The relationship between the Exeter Congregation and the Chief
Rabbis of London was never as close as that of the Plymouth
Congregation. There are no indications in the surviving accounts of
the Exeter Congregation of any 'presents' to him, there was no
obligation to mention the name of the Chief Rabbi when called to the
Torah, nor are the names of the Chief Rabbis commemorated in its
necrology. [The Exeter Congregation's necrology is in the Jewish
Museum, London. See Illustration 13.] In 1844, the Exeter
Congregation declined to contribute to the support of the Chief Rabbi
and consequently had no delegate or vote at the election of Nathan
Adler in 1844. [VJ, 16 August 1844.] Its attitude on this occasion seems to
have stemmed not so much from the fact that it was a small and declining
community - so were the Falmouth and Penzance Congregations which each sent a
delegate - but rather
due to a tradition of disinterest in the London Chief Rabbi. The
Exeter Congregation and its members did, however, call on the
services of various Chief Rabbis particularly in matters concerning
personal status such as conversions and marriages but also,
especially in the 1850's and 1860's, to settle disputes amongst
themselves. There is no clear cut reason why Exeter, apparently alone
of the South-West Congregations, had this distinctly cool attitude to
the Chief Rabbinate. Possibly, they were fortunate in having
cantor/shochetim of high calibre who were able to assert themselves
as de facto rabbis. Indeed it does appear as though the Exeter
Congregation referred to its cantor in the first half of the
nineteenth century as the rabbi, [EHC Regulations, 1833, no.
31.] and the right to pasken (give decisions based on Jewish
religious law) in the synagogue, a purely rabbinical function, was
exclusively reserved to him. [Ibid. p. 3.]

The Plymouth Congregation, on the other hand, appears to have had
only one rabbi, qua rabbi, throughout its history. [Rabbi Moses
Ephraim (Lipman, 'Aliens List', 28) who was in Plymouth from
1780-1815 was a tutor in a private family, the Josephs, but had no
rabbinical position.] He was Rabbi Phineas ben Samuel who was
appointed for one year on 22 June 1800 as 'Preacher and to give
ritual decisions at £45 per annum plus lamp for lighting and
coal for fire'. [PHC Min. Bk. II, p. 16.] There must have
been some conflict of authority, perhaps between him and Chief Rabbi
Hirschell, because in 1801 his unfettered right to celebrate weddings
was restricted so that he could only perform them at the discretion
of Kohol. [Ibid. p. 21.] Phineas's appointment was renewed
for a further year on 14 June 1801 but his name then drops from the
Congregational records in Plymouth. [Besides his Midrash Phineas
(which has a useful subscribers' list) Phineas also wrote Sefer
Kinoteha DePhineas (Berlin, 1788) which has an introduction with some
autobiographical details.] Apart from Phineas ben Samuel there
was no other appointment of a rabbi as such in Plymouth, [The
Revd Dr M. Berlin, minister in Plymouth from 1896-1906, had a
Rabbinical Diploma, but as was common at that time, did not style
himself Rabbi (information from his son, Mr B. Berlin). He was a
considerable scholar, the Revd S. Singer pays tribute to him in 1891
for valuable assistance which he gave in preparing the first edition
of the Authorised Daily Prayer Book.] nor was the engagement of
one contemplated, there being no rules at any time governing the
appointment or conduct of a rabbi. Nor was there at any time in any
of the South-West Congregations a seat for the rabbi, another
indication that such an appointment was never considered on a
permanent basis.

Although all male Jews aged thirteen years and over may lead
congregational prayers, in practice most Congregations engage a
professional singer, called a cantor, who conducts the main services,
often with a (male) choir. [The prohibition of any musical
accompaniment makes the cantor (and choir) almost a necessity when
there are several hundred worshippers present.] A top flight
cantor, internationally known in Jewish communities, has always been
able to command a high salary and is called upon to conduct services
on Sabbaths, Festivals, and special occasions, and he would have few
if any other duties. But most Congregations generally engaged men
with a pleasant voice who were able to perform other functions as
well, particularly that of shochet, or beadle. Indeed, in the
Plymouth Congregation, the duties of cantor and beadle were regarded
as reciprocal, if either was absent the other had to perform his
duties. [PHC Regulations, 1835, no.99.]

About 1823, when the Plymouth Congregation was in a poor state,
both financially as well as numerically, officials were no longer
appointed primarily on their cantorial prowess, but rather as
shochetim [See below for the functions of the shochet.] in
the first instance, who could also act as a Baal Tefillah, i.e. one
with a pleasant voice who was able to lead the prayers and read the
scriptures, but not a professional singer. [PHC Min. Bk. II, p.
178.]

At most periods in the South-West, each Congregation had only one
cantor. Plymouth, however, from 1796 until 1816 had a second cantor
known as the chazan sheni. The second cantor's duties were, in the
main, the same as the first's. [Cf. PHC Min. Bk. II, p. 115.]
The appointment of a chazan sheni was probably due to the advancing
age of the first cantor, Jacob Judah ben Benjamin, who was appointed
cantor about 1770 and remained in office until his death as a near
centenarian in 1829. [He was Levi Benjamin, one of the teachers
of Leoni, the master of Braham (Annual Register, 29 March 1829). He
had the most powerful voice in the kingdom (Gent. Mag. 1829, p.
380).]

The cantor, unlike a rabbi in the performance of his rabbinical
duties, was subject to the control of the Parnas or Gabbai. This was
spelt out in the Exeter Congregation's regulations of 1833:

he shall at all times and all places in his official duties be
under the direction of the Gabbai or person acting as such, excepting
at funerals when he must conform to the orders of the Gabbai of the
Cemetery Fund. [EHC Regulations, 1833, no. 45.]

The cantor had to be present at all synagogal services whether he
led them or not, and dressed in his proper attire. [PHC
Regulations, 1835, no. 84.] This attire was specified in 1794 in
Plymouth as consisting of 'kregil and mantle'. [PHC Min. Bk. I,
p. 60. The Kregil was the white bibs such as are worn nowadays by
barristers and clergymen.] The Exeter Congregation in 1823
similarly insisted on a proper uniform:

the cantor must not be in synagogue in time of service without his
Mantell, Biff and Hat, subject to a fine of 2/6d for each offence.
[EHC Regulations, 1823, no. 22. Biff is probably a Yiddish form
of 'bib', cf. the previous note.]

This preoccupation with a uniform, which was later to be called
'canonicals', the very term redolent of the church, has remained a
feature of Anglo-Jewish synagogal officials until the present day.
When Mr H. Aloof answered an advertisement in the Jewish Chronicle in
1924 inviting applications for 'a shammas, Reader and Collector' in Plymouth the
one requirement beyond carrying out his duties was that he had to wear his
'uniform' - silk top hat and clerical gown - at all Sabbath and Festival services. [Letter from Mr Aloof's son, Lionel, 19 January 1989.] Until World War II, almost
every single Jewish minister in Britain wore the Christian
clergyman's badge of office, the 'dog-collar'. This went out of
fashion after the war, though the author was asked whether or not he
would wear one in Plymouth when he applied for the position as late
as 1961. The lay insistence that rabbis and ministers should wear
canonicals' has become a point of issue in
many British synagogues. [The use of surplice or gown by the minister when he preached in church had been a
matter of bitter controversy in Elizabethan and Stuart
times, and there were still rumblings
in the nineteenth century (J] Thurmer,
'The Nineteenth Century: The Church of England', Unity and
Variety (Exeter, 1991), pp. 121-2.]

The cantor was expected to conduct the entire service, though on
Sabbaths and Festivals, when the service generally lasts two and a
half or three hours, the beadle helped out by saying the first part
of the prayers, until shochen ad. [PHC Regulations, 1835, no.
84.] The three South-West Congregations whose rules have survived
[No written records of the Falmouth Congregation appear to have
survived.] all insisted that it was the cantor's 'positive duty
to attend in the synagogue on the day prior to every Sabbath and
Festival for the purpose of rehearsing the portion allotted for the
occasion, and to be careful in noticing and correcting any error that
may have occurred in the Manuscript of the Scripture, which might
altogether desecrate the Scroll of the Law or require correction'.
[PHC Regulations, 1835, no. 84; PenHC Regulations, 1844, no. 64;
EHC Regulations 1833, no. 45.]

The cantor in the South-West Congregations was also expected to
act as a bookkeeper and collector of monies, [PHC Regulations,
1835, nos. 91, 93.] as well as a secretary to keep minutes and
the registers of births, marriages and deaths. [Ibid. nos. 91,
92.]

It appears that of the four South-West Congregations only Plymouth
was ever able even to contemplate engaging a top flight,
internationally famous cantor. In 1815, Yedidiah Naftali Hirtz ben
Moses of (?)Lichtentam came to Plymouth for an audition over Passover
and for five Sabbaths, at a period when the Congregation was at its
most prosperous. His wages were to be £100 per annum, but
evidently this was not sufficient for him, or perhaps the number of
worshippers was not great enough to satisfy his artistic ego, because
he declined the appointment, the Congregation observing 'and the
worshippers had much pleasure from his singing, therefore the cantor
and choristers shall have £10 from the charity box'. [PHC
Min. Bk. II, p. 107.] After this failure to secure a top flight
cantor the Congregation went back to its pedestrian cantors who could
and did combine their artistic talents with the more prosaic ones of
ensuring a supply of kosher meat or teaching children.

Another synagogal office was that of the beadle, called in Hebrew
the shammash, though more generally pronounced shammas, the jack of
all trades and maid of all work. Whereas the rabbi and, to a lesser
extent, the cantor occupy an office of leadership which tends to
distance them from the ordinary congregant, the beadle is close to
the ordinary worshipper both physically as well as metaphorically.
Besides doubling up for the cantor he had to open and close the
synagogue and superintend its cleaning. [PHC Regulations, 1835,
nos. 100, 101.] Nowadays, the shammas sets out the prayer books
and chumashim (copies of the Pentateuch) for each service. He shows
the untutored the place, and helps mourners who have not previously
attended weekday services to put on their phylacteries and to recite
the kaddish at its appropriate times. He ensures that the Torah
scrolls are rolled to the right place in readiness for the next
service, and that the right boards are slotted into the wall display
notice-board announcing the portion of the week, or special
liturgical insertions. He prepares a white curtain in front of the
Ark and white mantles to cover the Scrolls in readiness for the High
Holydays and, in Plymouth, for all the days on which Yizkor is
recited. To the shammas was entrusted the task of maintaining decorum
during the services. This was the acid-test of his authority. Often,
he would cultivate a steely glance which was sufficient to quell a
city magnate in his seat. In Plymouth he had to make announcements in
the synagogue, [PHC Regulations, 1835, no. 96.] and in every
Congregation he was the general factotum of the community, carrying
messages, taking round the lulav and etrog to those unable to come to the
synagogue so that they could say the blessing over them at the festival of
Tabernacles, announcing births, inviting people to religious festivities, and
generally making himself, if he was at all an able person, an almost
indispensable part of the community. When he was efficient services ran
smoothly, he would inform the wardens which worshippers were due to be called to
the Torah and made sure that they were called to a passage consonant with their
dignity, potential disputes were settled by a tactful word before they flared
up, and the community flourished. The beadle has always been the lynch pin of a
congregation. [The author pays a filial debt in giving this description of a
beadle's activities - his father
was the much beloved beadle of the Golders Green Synagogue, London,
for more than thirty years.]

The beadle, like the cantor, was expected to have other skills. He
was invariably the second shochet, a mohel, and/or a teacher. In
1802, in Plymouth, for example, the beadle Joseph ben Judah was also
a shochet and was recognized as sufficiently learned to conduct
marriage services; his wages were £40 per annum. [PHC Min.
Bk. II, p. 24.] In 1816, Hayyim Issacher's basic wage as the
beadle to the Plymouth Congregation was £50 per annum.

There was one
other official essential for the convenience of the community - the shochet. Jewish law requires that food animals
for Jewish consumption be killed by a trained man using a traditional
technique known as shechitah, which avoids unnecessary pain to the
animal. This man, whose training usually takes two or three years,
[Less in the case of a shochet who slaughters only fowls.] is
called a shochet. The carcase then has to be examined for signs of
disease, the man doing this job being called a bodek. The two jobs
are invariably combined, and the man is then called a shochet ubodek.
[Abbreviated in Hebrew as þ .These initial letters, when placed
after a practitioner's Hebrew name, have given rise to the surname
Shoob.] If a community had no shochet, kosher meat had to be
brought in from a neighbouring community, an expensive and highly
inconvenient expedient at any time.

äIt has already been mentioned [Supra, pp. 201, 202.]
that the shochetim in England at least from the early nineteenth
century were licensed, after an examination, by the Chief Rabbi in
London. Each shochet receiving a licence from Chief Rabbi Hirschell
was obliged to give an undertaking, besides the usual obligations of
the Jewish religion, not to shave with a razor and not to drink the
wine of Gentiles. [Duschinsky, Rabbinate, p. 264. Presumably
these particular prohibitions, the one Biblical, the other Rabbinic,
were widely disregarded at that time.]

To ensure that the shochet had not forgotten the laws relating to
the slaughter of animals and the examination of the carcase, and also
that he had not lost his skill in setting the knife to exquisite
sharpness, he had to report to the Chief Rabbi from time to time for
re-examination. For this purpose the Plymouth Congregation sent
Hayyim Issacher to London on Sunday, 27 February 1814, to be examined
by Rabbi Solomon Hirschell. The Congregation allowed Hayyim eight
pounds for the expense, which was perhaps calculated on a generous
scale. [PHC Min. Bk. II, p. 95. The following Saturday night was
Purim, and he was no doubt expected to be back on Friday. Apparently
the return journey could be done in a week.] In 1837, B. A.
Simmons went to London from Penzance to be examined at the request of
Rabbi Hirschell 'and is to be allowed six pounds for expenses going
up there and coming home'. [Penzance Minutes, Roth MSS 271, p.
82.]

The shochet in Penzance had to kill twice a week in winter and
thrice a week in summer. [Roth MSS 205, no.69.] In Plymouth,
with its larger community, he was busier, and besides killing for the
butchers he had to attend the homes of those who required poultry to
be slaughtered. [PHC Min. Bk. I, p. 60.] Besides the
inspection of the carcase, the shochet had also to 'porge' the meat,
[PenHC Min. Bk. 1843, p. 6.] i.e. to remove certain veins,
fat and sinews forbidden by Jewish law, [See Genesis, xxxii,
33.] and to ensure that it was watered within three days of
slaughter. [PHC Min. Bk. i, p. 60. For the obligation to water
meat within three days of slaughtering (unless soaked in the
meantime) see S. Ganzfried, Code of Jewish Law (New York, 1927),
XXXVI, 27.]

Rabbi Hirschell licensed not only professional shochetim, but also
private individuals who were going to remote parts where there was no
supply of kosher meat, [Cf. supra, p. 92, n. 3.] and possibly
also individuals who preferred to slaughter for themselves as they
wanted to abide by various stringencies which the regular shochet did
not observe. In the case of individuals the authorization only
extended to the slaughter of poultry. This would explain an otherwise
strange reference in the Plymouth Congregation's rules of 1835 to
'persons duly authorized by the Chief Rabbi to kill poultry for
themselves only' who were permitted to slaughter even without the
express permission of the officers of the Congregation, and even when
the Congregation had its own shochet. [PHC Regulations, 1835,
no.141.]

A man's income is an important factor in his life and his family's
happiness, often affecting his attitude to his work and the length of
his service. How well off were the Jewish officials in the four
Congregations in the South-West? Until about 1830, wages were not
ungenerous, and taking into account perquisites and income from
secondary activities, officials seem to have lived comfortably, and
if length of service is any guide, to have enjoyed their work. From
about 1840 until the end of the century their basic wages remained
much the same, with even a tendency to some decrease. [For
comparative figures in 1782 in the Anglican church see J. Barry, The
Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries', Unity and Variety (Exeter,
1991), p. 101.]

The best paid official was the cantor. In the Plymouth
Congregation, Jacob Judah ben Benjamin, for example, was receiving
fifty guineas per annum in 1807 [PHC Min. Bk. II, p. 41.]
which was increased to six guineas per Jewish month in 1814.
[Ibid. p. 96. It works out to about £78 per annum.] The
second cantor, Lima ben Ze'ev, started at £25 per annum in 1796,
which was increased to about £40 in 1800, and £50 in 1816.
[PHC Min. Bk. II, pp. 8, 20, 133.] In 1815, a Nahman ben
Isaac was appointed as first cantor, though without the title, as
Jacob Judah ben Benjamin was still alive, at £60 per annum.
[Ibid. p. 121.] He was able to augment his salary with a
further £20 per annum by acting as shochet for the Dock
Congregation. [Ibid.]

The basic wage of a shochet approximated to that of the cantor. In
1805, the shochet/beadle received £36 per annum for his services
in Plymouth and a further £10 for his work at Dock, whilst a
year later he got a composite salary of £50 per annum.
[Ibid. pp. 34, 37.] At this time his colleague the cantor was
getting £52. 10s. per annum. But the shochet was probably
financially better off as he also received a fee from the housewife
each time he slaughtered a bird. In 1822, for example, these payments
were 4d. for a goose or turkey, and 3d. for a pair of fowls, ducks,
or pigeons. [Ibid. p. 171. As the fee was 3d. for a pair of
fowls, did Jewish housewives then generally use two chickens at a
time?] Unfortunately, these fees being a private arrangement
between householder and shochet, there is no record of just how much
they amounted to. It may be surmised that they approximated to a
further £25 per annum. The shochetim traditionally also received
certain parts of the animal for their own use, [A. Shoshan, Man
and Animal (Jerusalem, 1963), p. 124.] or had an allowance of
free meat in lieu thereof. [Such was the tradition until kosher
meat ceased to be sold in Plymouth under the aegis of the
Congregation about 1964. According to the Exeter Meat Tax Book, 1828,
the Revd Moses Levy received 12 lbs. of meat each week. The unvarying
amount indicates a perquisite of a regular allocation.]

As the century wore on the Congregations of the South-West
expected the cantor to double up as the shochet, but the wages, if
anything, declined. In 1844, the cantor/shochet in Exeter got 19/6d.
per week, [EHC Min. Bk. 1838-1845.] whilst his counterpart in
Penzance received only 14/6d. per week. [PenHC Min. Bk.
1843-1863.] There are no figures available for the wages of the
Plymouth Congregation's officials in the latter part of the
nineteenth century, until 1865 when it advertised the vacant post of
shochet at 23/-d. a week. [JC, 10 February 1865.] In 1884,
the Revd A. Spier, general factotum to the Jewish community in
Plymouth, was paid 40/-d. a week. [PHC Annual Balance Sheet,
1884.] It was little enough, but at the same period, the Penzance
cantor/shochet had to manage on just half that amount. [PenHC
Min. Bk. 1863-1892.]

Apart from the basic wage, the communal officials in the
South-West Congregations, as elsewhere, had various opportunities to
augment their income in one way or another. In the eighteenth and
early nineteenth centuries, for example, legacies were sometimes left
to the officials, usually to recite memorial prayers where the
legator did not have male issue to say them. Examples of such
bequests include one by E. A. Ezekiel who left three guineas in 1806
to Moses Levy 'teacher of the Synagogue, Exeter, for which he shall
read the usual Lectures to my memory and to say Kaddish for me during
eleven months'; [Will of E. A. Ezekiel, Admin. January 1807, in
Archdeaconry Court of Exeter. The original was destroyed but a
transcript by Michael Adler was given to Cecil Roth and a copy is now
in the possession of the author. Ezekiel had no children to say
kaddish for him.] and another by Jacob Jacob who left

£5 to Mr Ephrim to say a certain portion of the holy
scriptures, Torah, as a prayer for me on every Saturday, also £5
to my brother-in-law Rabbi Simon for saying a prayer called Kaddish
for me in the Synagogue every day. [P.C.C. Crickitt, 415, 1811.
Rachael Benjamin, died 1817, left £1 to Moses Solomon to say
prayers for twelve months, and £1 to 'Mr Isacher to learn for 1
month' (Devon Record Office, Wills, B652). See also infra, p. 231 for
further details.]

Salaried officials could also expect to earn a few extra shillings
each year by entering births, marriages and deaths in a register.
Hayyim Issacher's contract of reappointment in 1822 specified:

The beadle shall keep a register book of all the children both
male and female ... also a memorial of all weddings, may they be for
good luck, and also a memorial of may we live and not die ... The
beadle to have one shilling for each ... name inscribed. [PHC
Min. Bk. II, p. 171.]

Until the early nineteenth century, officials in the South-West
synagogues frequently engaged in trade to a lesser or greater extent,
and there does not seem to have been any opposition on the part of
the South-West Congregations to this. [Even the Chief Rabbi in
London at this period had secondary sources of income (Duschinsky,
Rabbinate, pp. 238, 243).] In the Plymouth Congregation, Levi
Benjamin, cantor for more than 60 years until his death in 1829, was
an umbrella maker, [Plymouth Library Archives, Worth, 285. He
occupied a house in Basket Street, Plymouth from before 1797 to
1800.] Hayyim Issacher, beadle, was a slop-dealer, [He signed
a lease for conduit water for a house in Butler Street, Plymouth, in
1815, and is described as a slop-seller.] Falk Valentine,
shochet, acted as an agent for a London money changer, travelling
through Devon and Cornwall buying up gold for paper money with fatal
consequences to himself. [PHC Min. Bk. II, p. 78. He was engaged
by the Plymouth Congregation as a shochet on 18 August 1811 (PHC Min.
Bk. II, p. 63), and was murdered at Fowey in November 1811 whilst
buying up golden guineas for paper money (Royal Cornwall Gazette, 30
November 1811, 28 March 1812, 3 April 1812).] In the Penzance
Congregation, the general factotum, B. A. Simmons, had a lucrative
sideline in selling crockery as well as bones, the latter presumably
in connection with his shechitah activities. [Holograph letter to
him from Abraham Joseph II in the possession of Godfrey Simmons of
Penzance. He was minister in Penzance from 1812 until 1854.]

In the latter part of the nineteenth century when the members of
the Congregation in the South-West began to demand that their
officials should behave in a 'professional' way, [When the
Penzance Congregation's official was absent from duty, for example,
the committee wrote to him that 'such conduct ... was not becoming a
Reverend' (Roth MSS, 204).] trading by officials was frowned upon
if not forbidden. In 1840, the Exeter Congregation noted that

Mr Green having
opened a shop in opposition to the wishes of the members - unless he give it up in three months, that he have
notice to quit the situation ... Mr Green's answer is: I have no
intention of giving up my shop. [EHC Min. Bk. 1838, p. 72. He was
the Revd Michael L. Green, relation of Revd A. L. Green. In the 1841
Census he is described as a clothier and in July 1841 he married
Rosetta, eldest daughter of M. Davis of Exeter (Trew. Flying Post, 1
July 1841).]

None of the South-West Congregations, however, seems to have
objected to its officials teaching on a freelance basis, though the
Exeter Congregation in 1851 did attempt to regulate the fees paid by
parents. [EHC Minute Book II, meeting held 21 December 1851.]
There has long been a Jewish tradition for parents who could afford
it, and many who could not, to provide 'private' lessons for their
children. The Plymouth Congregation itself in 1812 arranged with
Simeon ben Nathan, its teacher, who had been appointed in 1806 at
£42 per annum, [PHC Min. Bk. II, p. 39.] that he would
have £15 per annum for teaching poor children plus a further two
guineas per annum for each additional child. At the same time he must
have received at least two and probably three guineas per annum for
each child of parents who could afford to pay. [Ibid. p. 68.]
Even the shochet when he was able to do so, augmented his income by
giving lessons, in one instance to Christian clergymen. Such a one
was Michael Solomon Alexander who gave private lessons in Hebrew and
German in 1824 to the Revd B. Golding of Stonehouse, [John
Hatchard, The Predictions and Promises of God respecting Israel
(Plymouth, 1825), Appendix by M. S. Alexander.] with far reaching
consequences which will be discussed in Chapter 10. At a later period
in Exeter, Revd M. Mendelssohn, 'teacher of Hebrew and German', had
three pupils boarding with him and advertised in 1863 that he had
room for another nine. [JC, 7 August 1863. Similarly, the reader
of the Norwich Congregation, who was paid £1 a week in 1864,
advertised, 'Hebrew, Chaldaic, German lessons ... Testimonials from
English and Continental Universities (Norwich Argus, 8 October
1864).]

Undoubtedly, the officials of the South-West Congregations
received gifts in cash or kind, from time to time, as, for example,
when they officiated at a wedding, circumcision, [Revd Elias
Pearlson kept a record of his income as a mohel in Hull. In 1883, he
did 31 circumcisions which brought him in £8. 1s. 6d; in 1884 25
and received £7. 9s.; 31 in 1886 brought him £4. 16s.; and
from 77 in the eighteen months ended December 1888 he made £9.
4s.; (original MSS in possession of E. Pearlson, Sunderland).]
funeral, tombstone consecration, or sold hametz at Passover. [A
Jew may not possess hametz, leaven, on Passover. If he has leavened
food, say a bottle of whisky, which he does not wish to throw or give
away, then he sells it to a non-Jew with the option of buying it back
after Passover. Such sales are usually made through a rabbi, and a
small payment is made to him for his trouble.] But no evidence
has survived to show the extent of such gifts. Until the twentieth
century it was customary in many communities for those called to the
Reading of the Law to announce a donation to the cantor and beadle,
and to the rabbi where there was one, in addition to donations made
to the synagogal or other communal charitable funds. Surviving
records do not suggest whether or not this system was ever in
operation in the South-West Congregations.

Accommodation was provided by the Plymouth Congregation for its
beadle in the house owned by it and which was adjacent to the
synagogue. [PHC Min. Bk. II, p. 15.] Other officials in the
South-West almost certainly had to provide their own
accommodation.

It is not possible to assess the importance of these secondary
sources of income in relation to the basic salary. Twentieth-century
practices suggest an order of 10-15 per cent. There is some evidence
that in the mid-nineteenth century some of the well established
officials in Plymouth and Exeter lived on a rather better scale than
their basic salaries would imply. Myer Stadthagen with four children
at home in 1841 kept two living-in servants, [Census, 1841.]
perhaps indicating an income of some £500 per annum on Marion
Lochhead's scale referred to before. Revd Hoffnung and Revd
Mendelssohn in Exeter each had one servant in 1851 and 1861
respectively, as did B. A. Simmons in Penzance in 1851, possibly
suggesting an income of £150-£300 per annum. [Census,
1851, 1861.] Stadthagen left a not inconsiderable sum after his
death in 1862. His estate was valued at under £1,500, and was
comprised of a house and about £1,000 in cash and shares.
[P.C.C. 1862/414.] It must be observed that it was unlikely
that Stadthagen saved all this out of his salary. He had married
Arabella, daughter of Judith Moses and Isaac Joseph. Isaac was a
comfortable merchant, and Judith was the granddaughter of Moses Jacob
who was well settled in Redruth by 1767, and great-granddaughter of
the founder of the Falmouth Congregation around 1750, [Jessop,
'Joseph Families', p. 141, Family Trees W.5, W.6.] and she might
well have had some inheritance of her own.

The basic incomes of the Jewish officials in the South-West,
however, compare poorly to those of their Christian counterparts in
both the Established as well as the Nonconformist Church. According
to Trollope, Mr Quiverful and his brood of 14 were poverty stricken
on £300 per annum, and at that salary Mr Arabin would not
contemplate the responsibilities of a family. A curate's average wage
in 1837 was £81, and in 1897 £145, whilst in the early days
of their existence, when pluralism was being restrained, the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners made up livings with 500-1000
inhabitants to £100. In 1893, when pluralism was rare, the
average annual wage for incumbents was £246. [Letter to the
author from the Revd J. A. Thurmer, then Lazenby Chaplain, University
of Exeter, 24 January 1973.]

Amongst the Nonconformists, the Presbyterians, the richest of the
dissenters in Exeter, in 1818, paid their minister £200 per
annum and in 1847, £343. [Mr Allan Brockett of the
University of Exeter, kindly gave this and the following information
on the salaries of dissenting ministers in Exeter, in a letter to the
author, 13 January 1973.] The Baptists had two churches in Exeter
after 1817. In the South Street church, where membership fluctuated
from about 60 to 200, the minister's salary rose from £80 in
1834, to £120 in 1846, and £200 in 1865. At the other
Baptist church in Bartholomew Street, where membership fluctuated
between 100 and 250, the salary gradually fell from £142 in
1830, to £120 in the period 1840-1860, to £100 in 1864 and
down to £80 in 1870. In Topsham, the Congregationalist minister,
though he never had more than 50 members, received £70 in 1872,
£100 in 1892 and £120 in 1911.

In the light of the salaries paid to Christian clergymen, those
paid to the Jewish religious officials in the South-West look
decidedly anaemic. Indeed, the Jewish clergy in the four
Congregations in Devon and Cornwall would hardly have been much worse
off financially had they been agricultural labourers, who, for most
of the century after 1796, received between 10/6d. and 18/-d. per
week. [In the vicinity of Exeter between 1837 and 1844 the
average farm labourer's wage was only 7s. 6d. a week, though with
substantial perquisites (Devonshire Studies, W. G. Hoskins and H. P.
R. Finberg (1935), p.428).] From Table 35 it will be seen that
for the most part, from 1796 until 1885, the cantor/shochet in the
Congregations of the South-West received just a few shillings a week
more than an agricultural labourer and about half or two-thirds of a
skilled London artisan's weekly wage.

Table 35: Comparison of weekly wages of religious officials in the Jewish Congregations in the South-West of England with the average wages of an agricultural labourer and a skilled London artisan

It should be borne in mind, however, that the figures shown in
Table 35 do not include other forms of monetary (and non-monetary)
payment received by the Jewish officials, as also by agricultural
labourers, for example. This does mean that such comparisons as these
need to be considered with some caution.

In the nineteenth century, Jewish religious functionaries could
expect higher wages in larger Congregations elsewhere, both in
England and overseas. [Revd Raphael of Birmingham received
£180 per annum in 1845 just for acting as headmaster of the
Jewish School there, and this was besides his stipend as Minister of
the Congregation. Of the other teachers at that school, two received
£80 per annum and one £60 (Chief Rabbinate Archives, MSS
104, p.5). The Hazan (reader/minister) of the Bevis Marks
Congregation, London, was paid £250 per annum in 1860 (Hyamson,
Sephardim, p.364).] The desire on the part of some of the Jewish
clergy to better themselves probably accounts in part for their
comparatively short tenures of office, whilst the other attractions
of larger Congregations no doubt also played a part. It is perhaps
not surprising that after B. A. Simmons retired in 1854 after 43
years of service [He had lucrative sidelines and wealthy sons,
and had sufficient income to remain in Penzance even when he was not
employed by the Congregation.] there was a succession of
'ministers' in the Penzance Congregation with its low emoluments, and
also in the Exeter Congregation after Moses Horwitz Levy died in
office in 1837 after 44 years of service. [Gent. Mag. 1837,
p.99.] Tables 36, 37 and 38 show the length of service of the
known religious officials in the Plymouth, Exeter and Penzance
Congregations in the period under study as a whole.

*In his article on Penzance
Jewry, Roth refers to a factotum called A. Lupshutz who
acted for a year in
1861 (C. Roth, 'Penzance', JC Supplement, June 1933, p. ii).

(Source: Minute Books of the Penzance Congregation.)

From Tables 36 - 38 it is clear that after the early prosperous
years of the Exeter and Penzance Congregations, when the incumbents served in
office for 44 and 43 years respectively, most of their successors remained for
comparatively short periods.

Only the names of
five of the
Falmouth
Congregation's ministers are known and they are
too few to draw any conclusions from them. They were:

a) Samuel ben Samuel HaLevi, died 22 March 1814;

b) Moses ben Hayyim, died 24 October 1832;

c) Joseph Benedict Rintel, c.1832-1849;

d) N. Lipman;

e) -. Herrman, 1860;

[A. M. Jacob, 'The Jews of Falmouth', TJHSE,
XVII (1949), p. 66, n. 2, for the first four and Chief Rabbinate Archives, vol.
VII, 18 April 1860 for the fifth).]

Apart from the small sizes of the Jewish communities in the
South-West, the main reason for the comparatively low rates of pay
for the Jewish officials was probably that the supply of officials
nearly always outstripped the demand. Throughout the nineteenth
century until the end of the First World War there was an apparently
inexhaustible supply of recent immigrants from Eastern Europe, who
were willing to take any form of employment provided it offered a
wage, however meagre, [This seems to be the point of a letter
Chief Rabbi Adler wrote to the Exeter Congregation in 1859: 'It will
be difficult to find an Englishman with all the qualities you
require. Let me know the salary' (Chief Rabbinate Archives, V, 1
April 1859).] to use it as a stepping-stone to obtain a better
job elsewhere. Thus, the temporary resurrection of the Exeter
Congregation from 1895 until 1917 may be attributed not only to the
presence in Exeter of East European Jews in somewhat larger numbers
but also to the willingness of young Jewish men, particularly
bachelors, from Poland and Russia, to become shochetim, cantors, and
teachers, at bare subsistence wages.

Owing to the relatively poor emoluments and short service of most
of the nineteenth-century officials in the South-West Congregations,
it may well be that there was little true religious leadership.
Leadership of a high order could perhaps hardly be expected from a
cantor who was merely expected to lead prayers, nor from a shochet
who was expected to kill efficiently sufficient animals for the
Jewish community's needs, and it has already been shown that few
rabbis or ministers were appointed in the Congregations of the
South-West. Nonetheless, some sort of spiritual lead was expected
from these officials, however ill-equipped they were to give it. Myer
Stadthagen in Plymouth, for example, who was originally appointed as
shochet and porger in 1828, eventually became the cantor and then
quasi-minister. In the latter capacity, he was responsible for sick
and prison visitation, as well as preaching on special occasions.
English was not his mother tongue and preaching must have been
difficult for him. There is no indication, indeed, that he preached
at all until he had been with the Congregation for many years. So
much so that sermons were often delivered, when they were given, by
members of the Congregation. In 1842, for instance, a Sabbath
discourse delivered by Mr Levy, Junior, was sent to the Voice of
Jacob which regretted 'that a young man of such good parts should not
possess the opportunity of qualifying himself for the important
office to which he aspires'. [VJ, 25 November 1842. Levy does not
seem to have taken up the Anglo-Jewish ministry.] In a situation
where congregants were often as learned, and sometimes more so, than
the officials, and, moreover, where the officials were lowly paid, it
is not surprising to find that some officials were sometimes treated
as mere paid employees, with all that that implied in the nineteenth
century.

The difficulties were understood by Lemon Hart, former warden of
Penzance, when on behalf of the Penzance Congregation he engaged B.
A. Simmons in London as a shochet for Penzance in 1811. Hart sent two
letters with the youthful aspirant to office: one, a recommendation
from 'The High Priest Solomon Hirschell', and the other was a hope
that the community

would behave to him properly, for you may rest assured those
articles are very scarce in this Market. [Letter in the
possession of Mr Godfrey Simmons, Penzance, quoted by C. Roth,
'Penzance', JC Supplement, June 1933, p. ii.]

Hart's pious hopes were not to be fulfilled. The earliest extant
minutes of the Penzance Congregation tell of charges against Simmons
and counter-charges by him, followed by threats of dismissal, fines,
and reports to the Chief Rabbi in London. [PenHC Min. Bk. 1839,
pp. 86, 91; PenHC Min. Bk. 1843-1861, p. 28.]

There is evidence to indicate that a similar state of affairs
prevailed from time to time in Exeter and Plymouth in the nineteenth
century. [See Roth MSS 204, 31 July 1864 and 9 April 1865.]
Frequently the pages of the Exeter Congregation's surviving minutes
deal with the 'misdemeanors' of its officials, and the Chief Rabbi
subsequently called in both by the Congregation and the official. One
example of the more serious disputes may be given as an illustration.
In 1851, the Chief Rabbi was writing to Revd Hoffnung saying that he
would support Hoffnung's candidature elsewhere, and whilst still in
Exeter he should try to act as moderately as possible. [Chief
Rabbinate Archives, vol. II, letter 7129.] A day or so later
Chief Rabbi Adler wrote to him,

Alexander (the Parnas) has written to me that you broke into a
terrible passion in Synagogue and said to Marks, "May you not reach
the end of your journey". Is this true? [Ibid. letter
7131.]

There is no record of Hoffnung's reply, but Adler was soon writing
to Alexander that he deprecated the Exeter Congregation's treatment
of Hoffnung:

I cannot suppress stating that no respectable Reader will go now
to Exeter to be exposed to such insults. [Ibid. letter
7150.]

At the same time he wrote to Hoffnung:

... stay away next Sabbath pleading indisposition so that there
should be no scenes in the Synagogue. [Ibid. letter
7159.]

One would have thought that the Congregation would be glad to see
such an incumbent leave. The Exeter Congregation, however, delayed
paying Hoffnung's salary so that he could not travel elsewhere to
apply for another position. [Chief Rabbinate Archives, vol. II,
letter 7579.]

The Falmouth Congregation in 1860 also delayed payment of the
shochet's salary. He invoked Dr Adler's aid and on 18 April 1860 the
Chief Rabbi wrote to the President of the Falmouth Congregation:

Mr. Herrman is leaving for Sheffield and complains you object to
him leaving. I think you have no right to form an impediment to the
man's promotion in life. [Chief Rabbinate Archives, vol. VII, 18
April 1860.]

Revd Stadthagen in Plymouth also had his share of troubles. In
spite of having given the Plymouth Congregation a quarter of a
century's service, various members made his life so miserable that he
tendered his resignation in 1856. [Ibid. vol. IV, letter 127. He
died in office 21 April 1862 aged 58 (PHC tom. B76). Perhaps he was
already suffering from ill-health and consequently was less able to
restrain himself.] Once more Dr Adler championed the cause of his
subordinate. He wrote to the wardens:

In former times your Congregation was one of the most united and
disciplined, now it has become a byword throughout the Empire'.
[Ibid.]

The trouble seems to have flared up in January in 1855 when
Stadthagen sued Aaron Levy for libel, though the case was dropped on
Adler's intervention. [Ibid. vol. III, letter 8944.]

Unfortunately, similar disputes between Congregations and their
officials were by no means infrequent in the Anglo-Jewish community
as a whole, as a perusal of the Jewish Chronicle or published records
of other provincial Congregations indicates. [For examples at
Sheffield, see JC, 30 December 1859 and 14 September 1860; for
Sunderland, see A. Levy, History of the Sunderland Jewish Community
(1956), p. 150; for London, see A. B. Levy, The 200-year-old New
Synagogue (1960), pp. 19, 20; Gartner, Jewish Immigrant, pp. 190,
206.]

On the other hand, Congregations did show appreciation for long
service by paying pensions [PHC Min. Bk. II, p. 8. The widow of
Moses, the Plymouth Congregation's beadle, was allowed 'all the days
of her life whilst she lives in our community two shillings every
week, also she is to live rent free ...' (PHC Min. Bk. II, p.
15).] and erecting tombstones for former officials. [EHC Min.
Bk. 1838 and 1861.] Moreover, long silences in the minutes
probably indicate that officials were satisfactorily serving their
Congregations, and undoubtedly there were many officials in the
South-West Congregations who gained the love and respect of most, if
not all, of their members. [Hardly a word of complaint against
Myer Mendelssohn was registered in the Exeter Congregation Minute
Books, 1854-1867. As there were bitter remarks against some of his
predecessors and successors, 'Mendelssohn must have been a bit of a
saint' (Frank R. Bradlow, 'Sidney Mendelssohn, a short biography',
Quarterly Bulletin of the South African Library, 22, 4, June 1968, p.
106.]

Theoretically, a Congregation could dismiss any official, as the
terms of the usual contract, at least in the eighteenth century,
enabled the official to leave or the Congregation to dismiss him
provided in either case three months notice was given. [PHC Min.
Bk. II, p. 177.] In practice, few Congregations ever dismissed an
official, unless he was guilty of gross dereliction of duty. The
factors which fettered the legal right of the Congregation to dismiss
an official were the influence of the Chief Rabbi who was usually
able to make peace; the difficulties and expense of obtaining a
better replacement; and, deep down, a respect for the office of the
official, influenced for the good, perhaps, by the contemporary
attitudes of his flock to the Christian clergyman.

Terms and Conditions, Licenses and Restrictions for the use of this website:

This website is
owned by JewishGen and the Jewish Genealogical Society of Great Britain. All
material found herein is owned by or licensed to us. You may view, download, and
print material from this site only for your own personal use. You may not post
material from this site on another website without our consent. You may not
transmit or distribute material from this website to others. You may not use
this website or information found at this site for any commercial purpose.